The Tank has Gone to Hell

[Iolanthe]

Vraith, is that the Beatles, Come Together??

No.

Well, it fits, try it.

I had a tranni so could listen.

I am laughing so hard I can't type and my abs are starting to hurt...and I have really strong abs....

Why? What's wrong with a transistor radio? This was the 60s.

And what's an "ab"?

[Fist and Faith]

[Vraith]

Vraith, is that the Beatles, Come Together??

No.

Well, it fits, try it.

I had a tranni so could listen.

I am laughing so hard I can't type and my abs are starting to hurt...and I have really strong abs....

Why? What's wrong with a transistor radio? This was the 60s.

Not that..."tranni," though spelled differently, means something else now, at least in the U.S.

[Iolanthe]

Oh. So is that another word I can't use now?

[Iolanthe]

Oh. Yet another word I can't use now.

[Fist and Faith]

Oh, you can use it. We're just gonna laugh about it.

[sindatur]

Vraith, is that the Beatles, Come Together??

No.

Well, it fits, try it.

I had a tranni so could listen.

I am laughing so hard I can't type and my abs are starting to hurt...and I have really strong abs....

Why? What's wrong with a transistor radio? This was the 60s.

And what's an "ab"?

Tranny would be more common here for The Transmission in a vehicle or a Transvestite. Never heard a Transistor Radio referred to as Tranni.

Abs are abdominal muscles (IE: He laughed so hard it made his stomach muscles hurt)

[Vraith]

Yea, use it...it was just hysterical where it came in...I'm still chuckling, but I'm almost Cail-like in finding some silliness hysterical.

OTOH, "Come Together" DOES work for it...which is kinda funny, cuz it relates to my first, cuz the Aerosmith version of the song is so much better.
But it is really from "Hair" called "I got life."

[Iolanthe]

Thank you, Sindatur. Someone with some common sense at last.

In the 60s everyone knew what a Tranny or Tranni was, because we all had one. Mine was about 6 inches by 4 and had a brown leather cover. They enabled us to become free of our parents' choice of radio. I also had a reel to reel tape recorder [cue laughter again] which enabled me to record "Top of the Pops" off my tranni each week - cheaper than paying 6 shillings and 8 pence each for the singles.

And thank you for explaining "abs".

[Iolanthe]

Yea, use it...it was just hysterical where it came in...I'm still chuckling, but I'm almost Cail-like in finding some silliness hysterical.

OTOH, "Come Together" DOES work for it...which is kinda funny, cuz it relates to my first, cuz the Aerosmith version of the song is so much better.
But it is really from "Hair" called "I got life."

No wonder I didn't get that. "Aint got no....I got life". Nina Simone's version is the greatest. It doesn't fit as well as Come Together.

Now that's the one with the song with the rude words in. I went around singing it until someone told me what the words meant ("Sodomy.... etc.). And I once played "Aquarius" on the piano on the back of a lorry with a friend playing the French horn!.

[Vraith]

Thank you, Sindatur. Someone with some common sense at last.

In the 60s everyone knew what a Tranny or Tranni was

heh...and most of us still do...I knew what you meant, I'm old enough I had one.....
ANd it is STILL funny...like calling your best friend Dick Dick for the first time after you find out dick means something else...

Oh, and it fits perfectly [I should know, I played the part for 300 performances...OH NO! an "ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY" [sorry had to put that in, it's the tank]]...you just have to put it at the very beginning...the intro part before the verse/chorus stuff kicks in.

heh...look at this off-topic/drift stuff going on...the Tank has gone to HELL!

[Iolanthe]

I have a gift for making threads drift.

[Worm of Despite]

This thread has gone to hell at least four times. No biggie.

[Cybrweez]

Haha, "Come Together" on the tranni...

[Vraith]

The corollary of this is that from non-liberal (e.g. conservative and libertarian) perspectives, discourse is about ideas and there need be little or no personal involvement in what are simply words on an Internet forum. Thus taking another person's feelings into account can seem to be either condescending (to the other person) or controlling (by the 'emotionally sensitive' other person).

Back to tankishness folks, after a brief and sometime humorous diverstion...and, sorry, u., back to more serious disagreements. Your post overall had some nice insights, some things worth thinking about, some good advice.
However, the interpretation is mistaken. If what that author is approaching were true, then it would be Cail and Z and such taking things personally as much or more than they say WF does. In the realm of that writer's approach the libertarian and conservative perspectives are MORE "liberal," in ordinary language that ordinary people here read, use, and understand...not because they are stupid, but for two reasons [and Z, if he reads this, I suspect can back me up cuz of his schooling...maybe others as well, but I don't know for sure]
The first is "liberalism" as philosophy, especially political philosophy, and definitly this author, uses it has a completely different usage...particularly in the piece you cited.
The second is it is also colored/shaded/sometimes oppositional in european usage and u.s. usage.

Heh...in a way, it's an example that often shows up in "fallacy" things like Hashi linked....you start from a false assumption...yet arrive at a reasonable/logical attitude.

Consider this "gone to hell #5" is you like.

[ussusimiel]

However, the interpretation is mistaken.... In the realm of that writer's approach the libertarian and conservative perspectives are MORE "liberal," in ordinary language...

The first is "liberalism" as philosophy, especially political philosophy, and definitly this author, uses it has a completely different usage...particularly in the piece you cited.
The second is it is also colored/shaded/sometimes oppositional in european usage and u.s. usage.[/color]

You may be right, Vraith, I'll have to have a closer look at the article. I may have cherrypicked a piece out of context because it fits with a long-standing argument I have with a friend of mine (and it seemed to help me get a handle on the situation in the 'Tank).

If what you say turns out to be true then it may cast an interesting light on all things libertarian

You are also correct about the usage of liberal/libertarian terms. The term 'libertarian' is not used at all in Europe, generally it is 'neo-liberal' that is used instead.

I may have been mislead because the article deals with Rawls' theories and I expect libertarian/neo-liberal to be addressing Hayek. I know that someone like Noam Chomsky describes himself as a liberal in the classic sense but is intensely opposed to libertarianism/neo-liberalismism.

A liberal (as I use the word in the 'Tank) is someone who believes in social justice, this is enough to clearly separate them from a libertarian. Whether the 'private agency' the article' speaks about has anything to do with taking things personally is something I will have to look at again.

u.

[Cail]

The problem comes down to definitions.

Take the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. AA was killed by a US drone within the borders of Yemen. We are not at war with Yemen. There were no hearings on whether or not to kill AA, nor was there any trial or tribunal. The president, acting alone (his words), made the decision and ordered the military to carry out the strike.

This was done by a Democrat, traditionally thought of as liberal. The president's supporters overwhelmingly refer to themselves as liberals. But modern liberalism includes principles like nonviolence, justice, and respect for human rights.

Conversely, conservatives are seen as war hawks and cowboys, yet by the very name, the principles should be about retaining traditional Constitutional values.

There's an odd role-reversal going on when liberals defend the decision to invade other nations on a whim, and conservatives argue for military restraint.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Holy shit.

[Vraith]

There's an odd role-reversal going on when liberals defend the decision to invade other nations on a whim, and conservatives argue for military restraint.

Definitely quite a lot of that around, and it seems randomly situational especially among politicians and politically active...it's always been somewhat that, but it seems extreme now.

If what you say turns out to be true then it may cast an interesting light on all things libertarian

It might. One fundamental thing I see, as far as U.S., comes from this:
The U.S. constitution/creation of it is at root a liberal document, forged from liberal thought as "liberal" existed at the time.
U.S. libertarians are, generally speaking, liberal-ish on many social issues [not all]...but conservative in a particular way, "conserve" the constitutional basis/ideology. Which is the problem with the other kind of conservative [often, but not always, the more fundamentalist religious branch] that, especially on the social issue front, flips the application of the constitution to limit people instead of its actual purpose of limiting gov't.
Obviously things are much messier/more complicated than that. But I see that as one basic factor.
Similar fractures exist in the liberal, too, but I don't feel like rambling on forever at the moment.

[Cail]

Libertarians are, by nearly every definition, Classically Liberal. The only way any of my beliefs can be labeled as conservative is if one believes that someone else has a right to the fruits of my labor.